2023-03-07 - P&E Agenda - Item 4 - Attachment 1 - Environmental Services - Threatened Fauna Recovery Road Map

7.2      Scoring methodology
Under the results collation process, the species within each of the key habitats that received the highest score by
the stakeholder was attributed an arbitrary value of 1.0. Some participants scored more than one species with the
equal highest score (within a key habitat) and in this situation, the score of 1.0 was proportionally split between
the nominated species during collation of the results. For example, if a participant nominated both the Mary River
cod and the Mary River Turtle for the freshwater waterways, wetlands and riparian zones key habitat category,
the value of 1.0 was split (at 0.5) between the two species (see example below in Figure 2).

Figure 2: Strategy 1.3 of the Noosa Environment Strategy (2019)




                                              Both species attributed a score of 0.5
                                                  when results were collated.




7.3      Species not scored by panel members
A total of ten Expert Panel members completed the Decision Matrix. Participants either completed the entire
Decision Matrix or completed part of the matrix for the species which they held adequate knowledge on.
Therefore, nominating up to nine (9) species for management priority. While a small number of species were not
scored by panel members, these species are generally also not of primary interest to the stakeholder. Therefore,
it is assumable that these species were unlikely to receive nomination by the panel member regardless.
Furthermore, the inclusion of three expert wildlife consultants within the Expert Panel (who all completed the
entire matrix), diluted the impact of this variable.